(February 9, 2015 at 5:30 pm)robvalue Wrote: Fair enough. I've not studied any of these other historical characters, so I can't comment on how the evidence stacks up.
It depends on who we are talking about. In the case of Socrates, we have actual evidence of his existence (three people who knew him wrote about him, which is exceptional evidence for a man of his era), despite the fact that he is not supposed to be nearly as important, and the fact that he lived hundreds of years earlier than Jesus supposedly lived. So belief in the existence of Socrates is obviously more supported than belief in the existence of Jesus.
Also, the level of evidence needs to fit with what one would expect for the time and place. For example, one naturally should expect there to be more evidence for the existence of, say, Richard Nixon, than for George Washington. This is because of the existence of photography in the one era and not the other, and for many other such reasons. And, of course, we would expect more evidence for the existence of George Washington, than for a random contemporary of his, who is not famous. People who are considered important tend to have more evidence of their existence than private persons; if, that is, they really both existed.
Additionally, with many people, their existence or nonexistence is not very important to people. If I say I believe that Thales existed, I am not really invested in the idea too much. It does not matter much if he did or did not. Certainly, the evidence for Thales' existence is less than that for Socrates' existence. A proper attitude, then, is to be more certain that Socrates existed than that Thales existed. Of course, being earlier, there would naturally be less evidence for Thales than Socrates, and so that, too, should be considered.
We may also say that the nature of the writings make a good deal of difference for how credible they are. Or, in other words, not all books or writings are equally credible. Some people write as gullible fools, and so they are far less trustworthy than those who show care and discernment in their judgments. Basically, a book of magical BS is less trustworthy than one that tells things that are inherently plausible, if all else is equal.
There is more, but this should get one started in thinking about the matter.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence."
— David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X, Part I.
